Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Lawsuit Filed Against Citizens Insurance for Denying Water Damage Claim

By Mark Nation on August 21, 2010
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

My client’s rental condo was for sale.  He and his wife did not live in the condo, but lived nearby.  One day their realtor called and advised that he went to show the condo, and found water on the floor in several rooms. 

My client reported the loss to his condo insurer, Citizens Insurance. Citizens denied the claim, based on two exclusions: 1) continuous leekage or seepage for a period over 14 days; and 2) water loss in a home that had been unoccupied for a period over 30 days.

Neither of these exclusions apply. The continuous leekage or seepage exclusion only applies to exclude coverage for damage that occurs after the expiration of 14 days of exposure to water. This exclusion does not apply in this case for two reasons: 1) we will be able to show that the leekage/seepage did not occur for more than 14 days; and 2) regardless of how long the leekage/seepage occurred, there was no increased damage as a result of long term exposure to water. In other words, the items that were damaged by water in this case (cabinets, drywall, and carpeting) had to be removed and replaced whether they were exposed to water for 1 day, or 13 days, or 20 days. This exclusion only excludes water damage that would not have occurred, but for the fact that the item was exposed to water for more than 14 days.

Citizens’ adjuster advised my client that the “unoccupied for 30 days” exclusion applies if the condo was “ever” unoccupied for a period of more than 30 days, even if the loss takes place years after it was unoccupied. In other words, say a homeowner leaves for a 6 week vacation in 2005. Years later while the home is occupied there is a fire loss. According to Citizens, this loss is not covered because the home was unoccupied back in 2005. This is ridiculous, and I do not expect that this interpretation of the policy will be advanced by Citizens’ attorneys.

The “unoccupied for 30 days” exclusion also doesn’t apply for two other reasons: 1) the condo was not “unoccupied” for a period of 30 days before the loss; and 2) even if it was unoccupied for more than 30 days before the loss, there is an exception to the exclusion which states that the exclusion does not apply if the insured takes reasonable steps to shut off the water prior to leaving the condo. My client turned off all the water prior to leaving on vacation, and therefore the exclusion does not apply.

As with almost all of my insurance cases, I will take no fees and costs from my client. If I win, the insurance company must pay my fees and costs, and if I lose, I’ll work for free.
 

Photo of Mark Nation Mark Nation

Mark A. Nation is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law, and also in Business Litigation Law by the Florida Bar. Although there are about 100,000 attorneys in Florida, less than 100 hold these two Board Certifications

Read more about Mark NationEmail
  • Posted in:
    Insurance
  • Blog:
    Florida Insurance Blog
  • Organization:
    The Nation Law Firm

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo